"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

How does a 12,000 hour airframe life limit for the SR-20 translate to a
4,350 hour airframe limit for an SR-22? Do you or does anyone at Cirrus
have
one shred of evidence to support that claim?

I don't have first-hand knowledge of the exchange between Cirrus and the FAA
during the SR22 certification process, but I know what someone at Cirrus
told me

Since the SR22 design is derived from the SR20, the FAA allowed Cirrus to
come up with a number for the SR22 without doing the testing. The life
limit was calculated for the SR22, based on the SR20 and the SR22's higher
max gross weight. Doing this calculation instead of the testing saved
Cirrus time and money in the certification process. It has always been
their intention to extend the limit later on. Since they first started
building the '22, they have made many changes to reduce the cost of
manufacture and increase quality. These changes have to all be approved by
the FAA, either under the type certificate, or the production certificate.
By incorporating the life limit testing into the testing for these other
changes, Cirrus is saving money.

While you can critique any such calculation, I'm certain that the FAA
scrutinized it carefully before approving it.

I have no reason to doubt this story. What is it that makes it sound
unbelievable to you?



So is the claim that they are waiting for the G-2. What does that have
to
do with it?

Probably because the G2 is made with different fuselage molds, including
a
different airfoil for the vertical stabilizer. What evidence are you
offering that this claim is bogus?

And this is what is holding up getting an extension on the SR-22? Tell me
how the G2 is preventing Cirrus from getting an extension on the SR-22

I'm just speculating here, but I'll bet it is based on economics. They need
to get the life extension on the existing SR22 airframes, as well as the new
G2 airframes. I imagine it is more cost-effective to do both of them at
once..


Do they think that sales will be better for the G-2 if they get a
reputation for
misrepresenting the SR-22?

I strongly disagree here. In what way have they misrepresented the airframe
life on the SR22?

I'll be the first to admit that we Cirrus owners sometimes get defensive
about our airplanes. When you've invested hundreds of thousands of dollars
it's only natural to want to justify your purchase and not want to hear
criticism that implies you made a bad decision.

However, there are some people that are suspicious of Cirrus Design Corp.,
as if they believe that they are selling snake oil. It seems these people
are waiting for the day when all of the happy Cirrus owners wake up and
realize they've been duped.

The only explanation I can think of is that Cirrus has upset the status quo,
and a few members of the old guard feel threatened, and are lashing out.

Can't we all just get along?

-Mike